Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. This morning we met with groups of women from coalitions all across Canada and they told us exactly the opposite. They know how much damage these Conservative minority government cuts will do, not just to the Status of Women Canada but more importantly to the groups that depend on it.

Can the minister tell the House whether these two hon. colleagues, who are women elected in the Quebec City region, objected to the decision to cut the Status of Women Canada office in Sainte-Foy? Did they object in caucus, at the cabinet table or in private?

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that not only do all caucus members in the government ensure that they meet their responsibilities to every woman in Canada but they also bring to the attention of their fellow caucus members the interests of their own constituents. We recognize our responsibilities to our constituents and all of Canada. This is a good decision for all Canadian women in every constituency across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, women’s organizations, unions, and spokespeople for all the opposition parties came and demonstrated in front of Parliament last week to denounce the cuts that this government made to programs that help women.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Status of Women give up her ideological approach, which sees grants for women’s programs as just more waste? Will she restore the funding of Status of Women Canada and the court challenges program, as a broad coalition of women asked her to do last weekend?

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear and accurate. There has been no cut to the budget of the women's program. The women's program had $10.8 million last year, has $10.8 million this year, and will have $10.8 million next year. What we are talking about is $5 million more in the next fiscal year for more work, more benefits, and more direct health for women.

Mr. Speaker, the minister’s answers clearly show that she is totally out of touch with reality. If she thought that she could divide women’s groups with this attempt, she was sadly mistaken because the Canada-wide coalition of women anticipated it and demolished it.

Are we to understand the minister’s answer to mean that she has decided, under the pretext of good management, to cut all support to women’s groups that are working so hard on the political advancement of women?

Mr. Speaker, again, let me very clear. Only the members on the other side of the House believe it is important to fund women's organizations and groups. We are saying that we will fund groups and organizations that want to directly help women in their neighbourhoods and communities to address the challenges that women are facing today and have been facing for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, the SCPI program ends on March 31. Thousands of people who work with the homeless are wondering what will become of the only program that is able to help them and able to fight youth homelessness.

In light of the insensitive attitude of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, can the Prime Minister show a little more sensitivity to the poor people in Quebec and Canada and announce right now that the SCPI program will be extended?

Diane FinleyConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, we care about the homeless. That is why we extended the national homelessness initiative last spring, complete with full funding right through to the end of March 2007. We have been processing the applications in the manner they have always gone through. In addition, we made $37 million more available, money that was not spent by the previous government and money that we have made available to help the homeless situation across Canada.

Diane FinleyConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, we are very aware of the timelines that are inherent in this. As I said, we extended the program through to March 31 to give us a chance to evaluate the existing program and to see, if possible, whether there are programs that might be even better. We will be dealing with those in due course.

Mr. Speaker, the government's underwhelming announcement on toxic chemicals is yet another clean air flaw and it is inexcusable because the government had all the information it needed in a comprehensive Liberal government report on toxic substances. We studied 23,000 substances and called for urgent action on 4,000.

Why is the government taking three years to act on only 200 substances when action is needed on 4,000?

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years and no action on toxins that are cancer causing chemicals in our own households and our environment, this government announced on Friday a groundbreaking world leading toxin management plan. Let me tell members what the Canadian Cancer Society said. It said that Friday was a good day for public health. It also said:

No Canadian should be exposed to cancer-causing substances. It's a comprehensive plan, more money is being put into it, and the chemicals will be evaluated a lot quicker.

It was a good day on Friday and she should be celebrating on behalf of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when the government has a good news announcement, it waits until Friday afternoon to make it. Bisphenol A is a chemical that just last week was again linked to breast cancer. It is often used in a variety of plastic consumer products including: some plastic water bottles, dental sealants for children's teeth, resins that line tin cans and children's toys.

Can the minister explain why it is not one of the 200 priority substances she plans to list over the next three years?

Mr. Speaker, the toxic management plan that this government announced on Friday goes beyond what the United States and the European Union have in place. It is the most aggressive plan in the world. The health of Canadians and the health of our children are at the forefront of what the government is doing.

Let me tell members what Dr. Rick Smith from Environmental Defence said. He said that the government deserved credit for taking decisive action. I know that is something new to that party, decisive action to protect the health of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of the Environment will listen to this. In an open letter, 700 Canadian scientists urged the government to include mandatory targets in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Since neither the government nor the minister wants to do anything, will they at least let the committee rewrite the act to include what the 700 Canadian scientists are asking for?

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the measures that we took on Friday addressed some of the concerns of the scientific community. We welcome their efforts.

It was the Prime Minister who made sure in our Speech from the Throne that we asked for a CEPA review process because it is the most important piece of environmental legislation. Who is holding up that process so that we can make important amendments to this legislation? The opposition, not the government.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government ordered the evaluation of 23,000 toxic substances and created a legislative framework to eliminate toxic substances once the report was completed. We did all the work. All that remained was to act, but once again, this Conservative minority government found a way to put it all off till kingdom come.

The Conservatives prefer to preach at everyone rather than do what the scientists have asked them to do. Why?

Mr. Speaker, it is embarrassing that the Liberal Party, after 13 years, did nothing to ban toxic chemicals that cause cancer in our children. Let me read what Aaron Freeman from Environmental Defence said, “By announcing a plan to deal with many of the most harmful toxic chemicals, the Conservatives have ventured where the Liberals refused to tread”.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the members opposite would say, last Friday the Prime Minister made a historic announcement regarding the protection of the health of Canadians and the environment. Could the Minister of the Environment inform the House if Canada's new government is moving forward to protect Canadians from toxic chemicals?

Mr. Speaker, as members know, on Friday Canada's new government committed $300 million over four years to implement the chemical management plan. This action makes Canada a global leader in protecting Canadians from exposure to harmful and cancer-causing toxins.

Ken Kyle of the Canadian Cancer Society called it a good day for public health. He went on to say, “No Canadian should be exposed to cancer-causing substances”.

It is a comprehensive plan, more money is being put into it, and the chemicals will be evaluated a lot quicker. After 13 long years of Liberal inaction on air pollution, this government is a breath of fresh air.

Mr. Speaker, at this time of year, Canadians are fuelling our economy with billions in purchases. This adds to our prosperity and is good for small business. However, every cent counts, especially at this time of year, and that is why Canadians want fairness from their banks.

Canadians using a competitor's bank machine to withdraw $20 get less money and more fees: a fee from the competitor and, sometimes, from their own bank. Yet, in other parts of the world, like the U.K., there are no fees for using a competitor's bank machine.

Will the government bring in bank fee fairness and legislate the end of competitor ATM fees?

Mr. Speaker, we count on our banking system to be competitive. I encourage consumers to shop and to have a look around at banks, credit unions and every option they have for banking machines in this country. They should shop competitively and make the right choice for themselves. We believe in competition in financial institutions in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, then perhaps the minister should consider the fact that the big banks just announced a record combined profit of $19 billion. All service fees combined accounted for less than 5% of their revenues. Bank fee fairness is not going to break the banks, but it will mean more money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians this holiday season.

When will the government start siding with today's families and bring in a package of fee reforms that would end competitor ATM fees and control credit card interest rates?

Mr. Speaker, as I say, we believe in competition. There are differences between banks, certain trust companies and certain credit unions on fees. However, in the spirit of Christmas, I say to the member that I will bring this up with the banks and hope that the Christmas spirit prevails.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday farmers in western Canada sent the Conservative government a clear message: the government does not speak for the majority of western grain farmers when it comes to the Wheat Board, and it never did. Over 60% of the ballots cast in the director elections were for pro-board candidates and 80% of those elected support the Wheat Board.

Will the minister, instead of being directed by the PMO, finally listen to farmers? Will he cease and desist in firing the CEO, withdraw his gag orders, and allow the farmer controlled board to do its work without interference from him?